Pathway Summary
Consort map
Demographic information
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 1791 | control, N = 901 | treatment, N = 891 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
age | 177 | 50.88 ± 12.64 (25 - 75) | 50.92 ± 12.93 (25 - 75) | 50.84 ± 12.43 (28 - 73) | 0.967 |
Unknown | 2 | 2 | 0 | ||
gender | 179 | 0.737 | |||
f | 143 (80%) | 71 (79%) | 72 (81%) | ||
m | 36 (20%) | 19 (21%) | 17 (19%) | ||
occupation | 179 | 0.926 | |||
day_training | 4 (2.2%) | 2 (2.2%) | 2 (2.2%) | ||
full_time | 22 (12%) | 12 (13%) | 10 (11%) | ||
homemaker | 23 (13%) | 11 (12%) | 12 (13%) | ||
other | 2 (1.1%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (2.2%) | ||
part_time | 32 (18%) | 16 (18%) | 16 (18%) | ||
retired | 43 (24%) | 21 (23%) | 22 (25%) | ||
self_employ | 7 (3.9%) | 4 (4.4%) | 3 (3.4%) | ||
student | 2 (1.1%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (2.2%) | ||
t_and_e | 2 (1.1%) | 1 (1.1%) | 1 (1.1%) | ||
unemploy | 42 (23%) | 23 (26%) | 19 (21%) | ||
marital | 179 | 0.958 | |||
cohabitation | 1 (0.6%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (1.1%) | ||
divore | 19 (11%) | 11 (12%) | 8 (9.0%) | ||
in_relationship | 4 (2.2%) | 2 (2.2%) | 2 (2.2%) | ||
married | 56 (31%) | 26 (29%) | 30 (34%) | ||
none | 85 (47%) | 43 (48%) | 42 (47%) | ||
seperation | 3 (1.7%) | 2 (2.2%) | 1 (1.1%) | ||
widow | 11 (6.1%) | 6 (6.7%) | 5 (5.6%) | ||
edu | 179 | 0.457 | |||
bachelor | 41 (23%) | 17 (19%) | 24 (27%) | ||
diploma | 32 (18%) | 21 (23%) | 11 (12%) | ||
hd_ad | 5 (2.8%) | 4 (4.4%) | 1 (1.1%) | ||
postgraduate | 15 (8.4%) | 8 (8.9%) | 7 (7.9%) | ||
primary | 13 (7.3%) | 6 (6.7%) | 7 (7.9%) | ||
secondary_1_3 | 20 (11%) | 10 (11%) | 10 (11%) | ||
secondary_4_5 | 43 (24%) | 20 (22%) | 23 (26%) | ||
secondary_6_7 | 10 (5.6%) | 4 (4.4%) | 6 (6.7%) | ||
fam_income | 179 | 0.766 | |||
10001_12000 | 6 (3.4%) | 2 (2.2%) | 4 (4.5%) | ||
12001_14000 | 10 (5.6%) | 4 (4.4%) | 6 (6.7%) | ||
14001_16000 | 8 (4.5%) | 3 (3.3%) | 5 (5.6%) | ||
16001_18000 | 4 (2.2%) | 2 (2.2%) | 2 (2.2%) | ||
18001_20000 | 9 (5.0%) | 7 (7.8%) | 2 (2.2%) | ||
20001_above | 34 (19%) | 20 (22%) | 14 (16%) | ||
2001_4000 | 24 (13%) | 13 (14%) | 11 (12%) | ||
4001_6000 | 20 (11%) | 8 (8.9%) | 12 (13%) | ||
6001_8000 | 17 (9.5%) | 9 (10%) | 8 (9.0%) | ||
8001_10000 | 14 (7.8%) | 7 (7.8%) | 7 (7.9%) | ||
below_2000 | 33 (18%) | 15 (17%) | 18 (20%) | ||
medication | 179 | 159 (89%) | 79 (88%) | 80 (90%) | 0.654 |
onset_duration | 177 | 15.30 ± 10.32 (0 - 56) | 15.77 ± 11.29 (0 - 56) | 14.80 ± 9.26 (0 - 35) | 0.534 |
Unknown | 2 | 0 | 2 | ||
onset_age | 175 | 35.70 ± 13.58 (10 - 65) | 35.02 ± 12.55 (10 - 61) | 36.39 ± 14.60 (14 - 65) | 0.505 |
Unknown | 4 | 2 | 2 | ||
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test | |||||
Measurement
Table
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 1791 | control, N = 901 | treatment, N = 891 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | 179 | 3.14 ± 1.20 (1 - 5) | 3.18 ± 1.24 (1 - 5) | 3.10 ± 1.17 (1 - 5) | 0.671 |
recovery_stage_b | 179 | 17.89 ± 2.83 (8 - 24) | 18.01 ± 2.90 (8 - 24) | 17.76 ± 2.77 (9 - 24) | 0.561 |
ras_confidence | 179 | 29.89 ± 5.32 (14 - 45) | 29.63 ± 5.35 (14 - 42) | 30.15 ± 5.32 (18 - 45) | 0.521 |
ras_willingness | 179 | 11.79 ± 2.02 (5 - 15) | 11.76 ± 2.02 (5 - 15) | 11.82 ± 2.02 (7 - 15) | 0.831 |
ras_goal | 179 | 17.48 ± 3.17 (7 - 25) | 17.33 ± 3.16 (7 - 25) | 17.63 ± 3.20 (11 - 25) | 0.534 |
ras_reliance | 179 | 13.33 ± 2.90 (5 - 20) | 13.11 ± 2.87 (5 - 20) | 13.55 ± 2.94 (7 - 20) | 0.313 |
ras_domination | 179 | 9.80 ± 2.42 (3 - 15) | 10.01 ± 2.49 (3 - 15) | 9.60 ± 2.33 (3 - 15) | 0.251 |
symptom | 179 | 29.86 ± 9.12 (14 - 56) | 29.98 ± 9.57 (14 - 55) | 29.74 ± 8.69 (15 - 56) | 0.863 |
slof_work | 179 | 22.35 ± 4.74 (10 - 30) | 22.63 ± 4.38 (12 - 30) | 22.07 ± 5.09 (10 - 30) | 0.426 |
slof_relationship | 179 | 25.40 ± 5.87 (9 - 35) | 25.13 ± 5.91 (9 - 35) | 25.66 ± 5.86 (11 - 35) | 0.548 |
satisfaction | 179 | 20.47 ± 7.14 (5 - 35) | 19.80 ± 7.10 (5 - 34) | 21.16 ± 7.15 (5 - 35) | 0.204 |
mhc_emotional | 179 | 10.83 ± 3.77 (3 - 18) | 10.66 ± 3.77 (3 - 18) | 11.01 ± 3.79 (3 - 18) | 0.530 |
mhc_social | 179 | 15.11 ± 5.66 (5 - 30) | 15.12 ± 5.80 (5 - 30) | 15.10 ± 5.54 (5 - 29) | 0.980 |
mhc_psychological | 179 | 21.79 ± 6.58 (6 - 36) | 21.77 ± 6.63 (7 - 36) | 21.81 ± 6.57 (6 - 36) | 0.966 |
resilisnce | 179 | 16.45 ± 4.77 (6 - 30) | 16.01 ± 4.52 (6 - 30) | 16.90 ± 4.99 (6 - 30) | 0.214 |
social_provision | 179 | 13.57 ± 2.86 (5 - 20) | 13.26 ± 2.74 (5 - 20) | 13.89 ± 2.96 (5 - 20) | 0.140 |
els_value_living | 179 | 17.01 ± 3.19 (5 - 25) | 16.79 ± 3.11 (6 - 24) | 17.22 ± 3.26 (5 - 25) | 0.362 |
els_life_fulfill | 179 | 12.74 ± 3.41 (4 - 20) | 12.33 ± 3.39 (5 - 20) | 13.15 ± 3.40 (4 - 20) | 0.111 |
els | 179 | 29.74 ± 6.04 (9 - 45) | 29.12 ± 5.92 (11 - 44) | 30.37 ± 6.12 (9 - 45) | 0.167 |
social_connect | 179 | 26.44 ± 9.32 (8 - 48) | 26.86 ± 9.12 (8 - 48) | 26.01 ± 9.54 (8 - 48) | 0.546 |
shs_agency | 179 | 14.35 ± 5.11 (3 - 24) | 13.92 ± 4.84 (3 - 23) | 14.79 ± 5.35 (3 - 24) | 0.259 |
shs_pathway | 179 | 16.00 ± 4.17 (3 - 24) | 15.52 ± 4.22 (3 - 24) | 16.48 ± 4.10 (4 - 24) | 0.124 |
shs | 179 | 30.35 ± 8.90 (6 - 48) | 29.44 ± 8.71 (6 - 46) | 31.27 ± 9.04 (7 - 48) | 0.171 |
esteem | 179 | 12.60 ± 1.57 (9 - 20) | 12.60 ± 1.61 (9 - 18) | 12.61 ± 1.53 (10 - 20) | 0.977 |
mlq_search | 179 | 14.89 ± 3.54 (3 - 21) | 14.58 ± 3.56 (4 - 21) | 15.21 ± 3.51 (3 - 21) | 0.230 |
mlq_presence | 179 | 13.40 ± 4.39 (3 - 21) | 13.31 ± 4.14 (3 - 21) | 13.48 ± 4.64 (3 - 21) | 0.794 |
mlq | 179 | 28.29 ± 7.06 (6 - 42) | 27.89 ± 6.78 (7 - 40) | 28.70 ± 7.35 (6 - 42) | 0.446 |
empower | 179 | 19.20 ± 4.36 (6 - 30) | 18.91 ± 4.28 (9 - 30) | 19.48 ± 4.45 (6 - 30) | 0.382 |
ismi_resistance | 179 | 14.42 ± 2.58 (5 - 20) | 14.44 ± 2.35 (6 - 20) | 14.40 ± 2.81 (5 - 20) | 0.918 |
ismi_discrimation | 179 | 11.61 ± 3.04 (5 - 20) | 11.74 ± 2.91 (5 - 20) | 11.48 ± 3.18 (5 - 20) | 0.567 |
sss_affective | 179 | 10.18 ± 3.62 (3 - 18) | 10.08 ± 3.53 (3 - 18) | 10.28 ± 3.72 (3 - 18) | 0.708 |
sss_behavior | 179 | 9.84 ± 3.73 (3 - 18) | 9.89 ± 3.75 (3 - 18) | 9.80 ± 3.74 (3 - 18) | 0.871 |
sss_cognitive | 179 | 8.39 ± 3.68 (3 - 18) | 8.27 ± 3.59 (3 - 18) | 8.51 ± 3.80 (3 - 18) | 0.666 |
sss | 179 | 28.41 ± 10.26 (9 - 54) | 28.23 ± 10.08 (9 - 54) | 28.58 ± 10.50 (9 - 54) | 0.820 |
1Mean ± SD (Range) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test | |||||
Plot
## Warning: Removed 2 rows containing non-finite values (`stat_density()`).
## Warning: Removed 1 rows containing missing values (`geom_vline()`).
Data analysis
Table
Group | Characteristic | Beta | SE1 | 95% CI1 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | (Intercept) | 3.18 | 0.126 | 2.93, 3.42 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.077 | 0.178 | -0.426, 0.273 | 0.668 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.105 | 0.179 | -0.246, 0.455 | 0.560 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.333 | 0.262 | -0.181, 0.846 | 0.207 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
recovery_stage_b | (Intercept) | 18.0 | 0.306 | 17.4, 18.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.247 | 0.433 | -1.10, 0.603 | 0.569 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.280 | 0.375 | -1.01, 0.454 | 0.456 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.906 | 0.550 | -0.172, 1.98 | 0.102 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
ras_confidence | (Intercept) | 29.6 | 0.565 | 28.5, 30.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.513 | 0.801 | -1.06, 2.08 | 0.523 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.706 | 0.554 | -0.379, 1.79 | 0.205 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.25 | 0.814 | -0.342, 2.85 | 0.127 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.022 | ||||
ras_willingness | (Intercept) | 11.8 | 0.212 | 11.3, 12.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.065 | 0.300 | -0.523, 0.653 | 0.830 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.123 | 0.234 | -0.581, 0.335 | 0.599 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.516 | 0.343 | -0.157, 1.19 | 0.136 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
ras_goal | (Intercept) | 17.3 | 0.337 | 16.7, 18.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.296 | 0.478 | -0.642, 1.23 | 0.537 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.122 | 0.373 | -0.609, 0.853 | 0.745 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.668 | 0.548 | -0.406, 1.74 | 0.226 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
ras_reliance | (Intercept) | 13.1 | 0.306 | 12.5, 13.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.439 | 0.434 | -0.412, 1.29 | 0.313 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.282 | 0.332 | -0.368, 0.932 | 0.397 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.493 | 0.487 | -0.462, 1.45 | 0.314 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
ras_domination | (Intercept) | 10.0 | 0.254 | 9.51, 10.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.416 | 0.360 | -1.12, 0.290 | 0.250 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.091 | 0.327 | -0.732, 0.549 | 0.780 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.11 | 0.479 | 0.166, 2.05 | 0.023 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
symptom | (Intercept) | 30.0 | 0.963 | 28.1, 31.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.236 | 1.366 | -2.91, 2.44 | 0.863 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.21 | 0.820 | -2.82, 0.397 | 0.143 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.518 | 1.207 | -2.88, 1.85 | 0.669 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
slof_work | (Intercept) | 22.6 | 0.500 | 21.7, 23.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.566 | 0.709 | -1.95, 0.823 | 0.425 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.277 | 0.513 | -1.28, 0.729 | 0.591 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.611 | 0.754 | -0.867, 2.09 | 0.420 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.002 | ||||
slof_relationship | (Intercept) | 25.1 | 0.615 | 23.9, 26.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.530 | 0.873 | -1.18, 2.24 | 0.545 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.422 | 0.656 | -1.71, 0.864 | 0.522 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.814 | 0.964 | -1.08, 2.70 | 0.400 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
satisfaction | (Intercept) | 19.8 | 0.750 | 18.3, 21.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.36 | 1.063 | -0.726, 3.44 | 0.203 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.594 | 0.695 | -0.768, 1.96 | 0.395 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.04 | 1.022 | -0.964, 3.04 | 0.312 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.020 | ||||
mhc_emotional | (Intercept) | 10.7 | 0.397 | 9.88, 11.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.356 | 0.563 | -0.748, 1.46 | 0.528 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.481 | 0.357 | -0.220, 1.18 | 0.182 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.271 | 0.526 | -1.30, 0.760 | 0.607 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.003 | ||||
mhc_social | (Intercept) | 15.1 | 0.617 | 13.9, 16.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.021 | 0.876 | -1.74, 1.70 | 0.981 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.945 | 0.629 | -0.289, 2.18 | 0.136 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.166 | 0.925 | -1.98, 1.65 | 0.858 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
mhc_psychological | (Intercept) | 21.8 | 0.712 | 20.4, 23.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.042 | 1.010 | -1.94, 2.02 | 0.967 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.02 | 0.717 | -0.386, 2.43 | 0.158 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.174 | 1.055 | -2.24, 1.89 | 0.870 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
resilisnce | (Intercept) | 16.0 | 0.489 | 15.1, 17.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.888 | 0.693 | -0.471, 2.25 | 0.202 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.409 | 0.533 | -0.637, 1.45 | 0.445 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.19 | 0.784 | -0.349, 2.72 | 0.133 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.030 | ||||
social_provision | (Intercept) | 13.3 | 0.301 | 12.7, 13.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.632 | 0.427 | -0.204, 1.47 | 0.140 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.406 | 0.329 | -1.05, 0.239 | 0.220 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.789 | 0.484 | -0.159, 1.74 | 0.106 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.028 | ||||
els_value_living | (Intercept) | 16.8 | 0.339 | 16.1, 17.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.436 | 0.480 | -0.506, 1.38 | 0.365 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.218 | 0.343 | -0.454, 0.890 | 0.527 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.330 | 0.504 | -0.658, 1.32 | 0.515 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
els_life_fulfill | (Intercept) | 12.3 | 0.349 | 11.6, 13.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.813 | 0.495 | -0.158, 1.78 | 0.102 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.292 | 0.326 | -0.346, 0.930 | 0.371 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.258 | 0.479 | -0.680, 1.20 | 0.591 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.021 | ||||
els | (Intercept) | 29.1 | 0.634 | 27.9, 30.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.25 | 0.899 | -0.514, 3.01 | 0.167 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.541 | 0.559 | -0.556, 1.64 | 0.336 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.481 | 0.823 | -1.13, 2.09 | 0.560 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.017 | ||||
social_connect | (Intercept) | 26.9 | 0.985 | 24.9, 28.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.844 | 1.397 | -3.58, 1.89 | 0.546 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.177 | 0.879 | -1.55, 1.90 | 0.841 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -2.94 | 1.294 | -5.48, -0.407 | 0.025 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
shs_agency | (Intercept) | 13.9 | 0.534 | 12.9, 15.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.864 | 0.757 | -0.620, 2.35 | 0.255 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.424 | 0.497 | -0.550, 1.40 | 0.396 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.486 | 0.732 | -0.948, 1.92 | 0.508 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
shs_pathway | (Intercept) | 15.5 | 0.432 | 14.7, 16.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.961 | 0.612 | -0.239, 2.16 | 0.118 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.488 | 0.430 | -0.354, 1.33 | 0.259 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.158 | 0.632 | -1.40, 1.08 | 0.803 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
shs | (Intercept) | 29.4 | 0.924 | 27.6, 31.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.83 | 1.310 | -0.742, 4.39 | 0.165 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.909 | 0.865 | -0.786, 2.60 | 0.296 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.308 | 1.272 | -2.18, 2.80 | 0.809 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
esteem | (Intercept) | 12.6 | 0.163 | 12.3, 12.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.007 | 0.231 | -0.446, 0.460 | 0.977 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.048 | 0.227 | -0.493, 0.397 | 0.832 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.171 | 0.333 | -0.482, 0.823 | 0.609 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.001 | ||||
mlq_search | (Intercept) | 14.6 | 0.366 | 13.9, 15.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.636 | 0.519 | -0.382, 1.65 | 0.222 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.776 | 0.454 | -0.114, 1.67 | 0.090 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.887 | 0.667 | -2.19, 0.419 | 0.186 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
mlq_presence | (Intercept) | 13.3 | 0.456 | 12.4, 14.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.172 | 0.647 | -1.10, 1.44 | 0.791 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.853 | 0.505 | -0.136, 1.84 | 0.094 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.189 | 0.741 | -1.64, 1.26 | 0.799 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
mlq | (Intercept) | 27.9 | 0.740 | 26.4, 29.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.808 | 1.049 | -1.25, 2.86 | 0.442 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.63 | 0.855 | -0.048, 3.30 | 0.060 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.05 | 1.256 | -3.51, 1.41 | 0.405 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
empower | (Intercept) | 18.9 | 0.457 | 18.0, 19.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.572 | 0.649 | -0.699, 1.84 | 0.379 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.976 | 0.458 | 0.079, 1.87 | 0.035 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.976 | 0.673 | -2.29, 0.343 | 0.150 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
ismi_resistance | (Intercept) | 14.4 | 0.265 | 13.9, 15.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.040 | 0.375 | -0.776, 0.696 | 0.915 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.132 | 0.320 | -0.496, 0.760 | 0.681 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.485 | 0.470 | -0.436, 1.41 | 0.304 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
ismi_discrimation | (Intercept) | 11.7 | 0.328 | 11.1, 12.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.261 | 0.465 | -1.17, 0.651 | 0.575 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.286 | 0.427 | -1.12, 0.551 | 0.504 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.520 | 0.626 | -1.75, 0.707 | 0.408 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
sss_affective | (Intercept) | 10.1 | 0.383 | 9.33, 10.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.203 | 0.543 | -0.861, 1.27 | 0.709 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.066 | 0.367 | -0.785, 0.653 | 0.857 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.16 | 0.540 | -2.22, -0.106 | 0.033 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
sss_behavior | (Intercept) | 9.89 | 0.390 | 9.12, 10.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.091 | 0.554 | -1.18, 0.994 | 0.869 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.306 | 0.375 | -1.04, 0.430 | 0.417 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.375 | 0.552 | -1.46, 0.708 | 0.499 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
sss_cognitive | (Intercept) | 8.27 | 0.384 | 7.51, 9.02 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.239 | 0.545 | -0.829, 1.31 | 0.661 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.077 | 0.394 | -0.849, 0.695 | 0.846 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.813 | 0.579 | -1.95, 0.322 | 0.164 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
sss | (Intercept) | 28.2 | 1.079 | 26.1, 30.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.351 | 1.531 | -2.65, 3.35 | 0.819 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.489 | 0.949 | -2.35, 1.37 | 0.607 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -2.16 | 1.396 | -4.90, 0.572 | 0.124 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval | |||||
Text
recovery_stage_a
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.39) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.18 (95% CI [2.93, 3.42], t(260) = 25.27, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.27], t(260) = -0.43, p = 0.667; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.23])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.46], t(260) = 0.58, p = 0.559; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.85], t(260) = 1.27, p = 0.204; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.71])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
recovery_stage_b
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.56) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.95e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.01 (95% CI [17.41, 18.61], t(260) = 58.93, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-1.10, 0.60], t(260) = -0.57, p = 0.569; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.21])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-1.01, 0.45], t(260) = -0.75, p = 0.454; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.16])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.91, 95% CI [-0.17, 1.98], t(260) = 1.65, p = 0.100; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.68])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_confidence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.63 (95% CI [28.53, 30.74], t(260) = 52.47, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-1.06, 2.08], t(260) = 0.64, p = 0.522; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.39])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [-0.38, 1.79], t(260) = 1.28, p = 0.202; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.33])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.25, 95% CI [-0.34, 2.85], t(260) = 1.54, p = 0.124; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.53])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_willingness
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.62e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.76 (95% CI [11.34, 12.17], t(260) = 55.57, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.65], t(260) = 0.22, p = 0.829; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.32])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.33], t(260) = -0.53, p = 0.598; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.16])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.52, 95% CI [-0.16, 1.19], t(260) = 1.50, p = 0.133; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.58])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_goal
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.33 (95% CI [16.67, 17.99], t(260) = 51.40, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.64, 1.23], t(260) = 0.62, p = 0.536; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.39])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.85], t(260) = 0.33, p = 0.744; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.27])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.67, 95% CI [-0.41, 1.74], t(260) = 1.22, p = 0.223; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.54])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_reliance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.11 (95% CI [12.51, 13.71], t(260) = 42.82, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-0.41, 1.29], t(260) = 1.01, p = 0.311; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.44])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.93], t(260) = 0.85, p = 0.395; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.32])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-0.46, 1.45], t(260) = 1.01, p = 0.312; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.50])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_domination
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.52) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.01 (95% CI [9.51, 10.51], t(260) = 39.44, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-1.12, 0.29], t(260) = -1.15, p = 0.248; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.12])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.73, 0.55], t(260) = -0.28, p = 0.780; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.23])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.11, 95% CI [0.17, 2.05], t(260) = 2.31, p = 0.021; Std. beta = 0.46, 95% CI [0.07, 0.85])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
symptom
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.11e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.98 (95% CI [28.09, 31.87], t(260) = 31.11, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-2.91, 2.44], t(260) = -0.17, p = 0.863; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.26])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.21, 95% CI [-2.82, 0.40], t(260) = -1.48, p = 0.140; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.04])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.52, 95% CI [-2.88, 1.85], t(260) = -0.43, p = 0.668; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.20])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_work
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.41e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.63 (95% CI [21.65, 23.61], t(260) = 45.30, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.57, 95% CI [-1.95, 0.82], t(260) = -0.80, p = 0.425; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.17])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-1.28, 0.73], t(260) = -0.54, p = 0.590; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.15])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-0.87, 2.09], t(260) = 0.81, p = 0.418; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.44])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_relationship
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.71e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 25.13 (95% CI [23.93, 26.34], t(260) = 40.84, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-1.18, 2.24], t(260) = 0.61, p = 0.544; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.38])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-1.71, 0.86], t(260) = -0.64, p = 0.520; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.15])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.81, 95% CI [-1.08, 2.70], t(260) = 0.84, p = 0.398; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.46])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
satisfaction
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.80 (95% CI [18.33, 21.27], t(260) = 26.42, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.36, 95% CI [-0.73, 3.44], t(260) = 1.28, p = 0.202; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.48])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-0.77, 1.96], t(260) = 0.85, p = 0.393; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.27])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.04, 95% CI [-0.96, 3.04], t(260) = 1.02, p = 0.309; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.43])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_emotional
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.36e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.66 (95% CI [9.88, 11.43], t(260) = 26.83, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.75, 1.46], t(260) = 0.63, p = 0.528; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.39])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.48, 95% CI [-0.22, 1.18], t(260) = 1.34, p = 0.179; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.31])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-1.30, 0.76], t(260) = -0.52, p = 0.606; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.20])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_social
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.93e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.12 (95% CI [13.91, 16.33], t(260) = 24.49, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-1.74, 1.70], t(260) = -0.02, p = 0.981; Std. beta = -3.64e-03, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.29])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.94, 95% CI [-0.29, 2.18], t(260) = 1.50, p = 0.133; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-1.98, 1.65], t(260) = -0.18, p = 0.858; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.28])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_psychological
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.28e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.77 (95% CI [20.37, 23.16], t(260) = 30.56, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-1.94, 2.02], t(260) = 0.04, p = 0.967; Std. beta = 6.34e-03, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.30])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.02, 95% CI [-0.39, 2.43], t(260) = 1.42, p = 0.155; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.36])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-2.24, 1.89], t(260) = -0.16, p = 0.869; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.28])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
resilisnce
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.01 (95% CI [15.05, 16.97], t(260) = 32.76, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.89, 95% CI [-0.47, 2.25], t(260) = 1.28, p = 0.200; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.48])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.64, 1.45], t(260) = 0.77, p = 0.444; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.31])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.19, 95% CI [-0.35, 2.72], t(260) = 1.51, p = 0.130; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.58])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_provision
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.26 (95% CI [12.67, 13.85], t(260) = 44.05, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.63, 95% CI [-0.20, 1.47], t(260) = 1.48, p = 0.139; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.50])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-1.05, 0.24], t(260) = -1.24, p = 0.217; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.08])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.79, 95% CI [-0.16, 1.74], t(260) = 1.63, p = 0.103; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.60])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_value_living
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.79 (95% CI [16.12, 17.45], t(260) = 49.56, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-0.51, 1.38], t(260) = 0.91, p = 0.364; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.43])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.89], t(260) = 0.64, p = 0.525; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.28])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.66, 1.32], t(260) = 0.65, p = 0.513; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.41])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_life_fulfill
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.33 (95% CI [11.65, 13.02], t(260) = 35.33, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.81, 95% CI [-0.16, 1.78], t(260) = 1.64, p = 0.101; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.54])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.93], t(260) = 0.90, p = 0.369; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.28])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.68, 1.20], t(260) = 0.54, p = 0.590; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.36])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.12 (95% CI [27.88, 30.37], t(260) = 45.92, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.25, 95% CI [-0.51, 3.01], t(260) = 1.39, p = 0.165; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.50])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-0.56, 1.64], t(260) = 0.97, p = 0.334; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.27])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.48, 95% CI [-1.13, 2.09], t(260) = 0.58, p = 0.559; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.35])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_connect
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 26.86 (95% CI [24.92, 28.79], t(260) = 27.26, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.84, 95% CI [-3.58, 1.89], t(260) = -0.60, p = 0.546; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.20])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-1.55, 1.90], t(260) = 0.20, p = 0.841; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.20])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -2.94, 95% CI [-5.48, -0.41], t(260) = -2.27, p = 0.023; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.58, -0.04])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_agency
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.92 (95% CI [12.88, 14.97], t(260) = 26.07, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [-0.62, 2.35], t(260) = 1.14, p = 0.254; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.47])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-0.55, 1.40], t(260) = 0.85, p = 0.393; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.28])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-0.95, 1.92], t(260) = 0.66, p = 0.507; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.38])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_pathway
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.52 (95% CI [14.68, 16.37], t(260) = 35.96, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.96, 95% CI [-0.24, 2.16], t(260) = 1.57, p = 0.117; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.53])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-0.35, 1.33], t(260) = 1.14, p = 0.256; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.33])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-1.40, 1.08], t(260) = -0.25, p = 0.803; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.26])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.44 (95% CI [27.63, 31.25], t(260) = 31.88, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.83, 95% CI [-0.74, 4.39], t(260) = 1.39, p = 0.163; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.50])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.91, 95% CI [-0.79, 2.60], t(260) = 1.05, p = 0.293; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-2.18, 2.80], t(260) = 0.24, p = 0.808; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.32])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
esteem
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.41) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.16e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.60 (95% CI [12.28, 12.92], t(260) = 77.29, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 6.74e-03, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.46], t(260) = 0.03, p = 0.977; Std. beta = 4.36e-03, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.30])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.40], t(260) = -0.21, p = 0.832; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.26])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.82], t(260) = 0.51, p = 0.608; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.53])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_search
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.55) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.19e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.58 (95% CI [13.86, 15.30], t(260) = 39.82, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.64, 95% CI [-0.38, 1.65], t(260) = 1.22, p = 0.221; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.48])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.78, 95% CI [-0.11, 1.67], t(260) = 1.71, p = 0.087; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.48])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.89, 95% CI [-2.19, 0.42], t(260) = -1.33, p = 0.183; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.12])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_presence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.02e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.31 (95% CI [12.42, 14.21], t(260) = 29.18, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-1.10, 1.44], t(260) = 0.27, p = 0.790; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.33])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.85, 95% CI [-0.14, 1.84], t(260) = 1.69, p = 0.091; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.43])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-1.64, 1.26], t(260) = -0.26, p = 0.798; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.29])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.85e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.89 (95% CI [26.44, 29.34], t(260) = 37.70, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.81, 95% CI [-1.25, 2.86], t(260) = 0.77, p = 0.441; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.41])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.63, 95% CI [-0.05, 3.30], t(260) = 1.90, p = 0.057; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-6.76e-03, 0.47])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.05, 95% CI [-3.51, 1.41], t(260) = -0.84, p = 0.403; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.20])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
empower
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.60e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.91 (95% CI [18.01, 19.81], t(260) = 41.34, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.57, 95% CI [-0.70, 1.84], t(260) = 0.88, p = 0.378; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.43])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.98, 95% CI [0.08, 1.87], t(260) = 2.13, p = 0.033; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [0.02, 0.44])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.98, 95% CI [-2.29, 0.34], t(260) = -1.45, p = 0.147; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.08])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_resistance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.58) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.01e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.44 (95% CI [13.93, 14.96], t(260) = 54.56, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.78, 0.70], t(260) = -0.11, p = 0.915; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.28])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.76], t(260) = 0.41, p = 0.681; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-0.44, 1.41], t(260) = 1.03, p = 0.302; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.56])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_discrimation
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.50) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.74 (95% CI [11.10, 12.39], t(260) = 35.79, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-1.17, 0.65], t(260) = -0.56, p = 0.574; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.21])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-1.12, 0.55], t(260) = -0.67, p = 0.503; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.17])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.52, 95% CI [-1.75, 0.71], t(260) = -0.83, p = 0.406; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.22])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_affective
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.08 (95% CI [9.33, 10.83], t(260) = 26.31, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.86, 1.27], t(260) = 0.37, p = 0.708; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.35])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.79, 0.65], t(260) = -0.18, p = 0.857; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.18])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.16, 95% CI [-2.22, -0.11], t(260) = -2.16, p = 0.031; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.61, -0.03])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_behavior
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.99e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.89 (95% CI [9.12, 10.65], t(260) = 25.34, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-1.18, 0.99], t(260) = -0.16, p = 0.869; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.27])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-1.04, 0.43], t(260) = -0.81, p = 0.415; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.12])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.37, 95% CI [-1.46, 0.71], t(260) = -0.68, p = 0.498; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.19])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_cognitive
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.22e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.27 (95% CI [7.51, 9.02], t(260) = 21.52, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.83, 1.31], t(260) = 0.44, p = 0.661; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.36])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.85, 0.70], t(260) = -0.20, p = 0.845; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.19])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.81, 95% CI [-1.95, 0.32], t(260) = -1.40, p = 0.161; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.09])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.42e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.23 (95% CI [26.12, 30.35], t(260) = 26.16, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-2.65, 3.35], t(260) = 0.23, p = 0.819; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.33])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.49, 95% CI [-2.35, 1.37], t(260) = -0.52, p = 0.606; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.13])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.16, 95% CI [-4.90, 0.57], t(260) = -1.55, p = 0.121; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.06])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
Likelihood ratio tests
outcome | model | npar | AIC | BIC | logLik | deviance | Chisq | Df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | null | 3 | 842.758 | 853.508 | -418.379 | 836.758 | |||
recovery_stage_a | random | 6 | 843.289 | 864.790 | -415.644 | 831.289 | 5.469 | 3 | 0.140 |
recovery_stage_b | null | 3 | 1,293.236 | 1,303.987 | -643.618 | 1,287.236 | |||
recovery_stage_b | random | 6 | 1,296.233 | 1,317.734 | -642.117 | 1,284.233 | 3.003 | 3 | 0.391 |
ras_confidence | null | 3 | 1,596.210 | 1,606.960 | -795.105 | 1,590.210 | |||
ras_confidence | random | 6 | 1,589.099 | 1,610.600 | -788.550 | 1,577.099 | 13.110 | 3 | 0.004 |
ras_willingness | null | 3 | 1,082.298 | 1,093.048 | -538.149 | 1,076.298 | |||
ras_willingness | random | 6 | 1,085.089 | 1,106.590 | -536.545 | 1,073.089 | 3.208 | 3 | 0.361 |
ras_goal | null | 3 | 1,332.472 | 1,343.223 | -663.236 | 1,326.472 | |||
ras_goal | random | 6 | 1,333.476 | 1,354.977 | -660.738 | 1,321.476 | 4.996 | 3 | 0.172 |
ras_reliance | null | 3 | 1,280.015 | 1,290.766 | -637.008 | 1,274.015 | |||
ras_reliance | random | 6 | 1,278.848 | 1,300.349 | -633.424 | 1,266.848 | 7.168 | 3 | 0.067 |
ras_domination | null | 3 | 1,206.702 | 1,217.452 | -600.351 | 1,200.702 | |||
ras_domination | random | 6 | 1,204.241 | 1,225.742 | -596.121 | 1,192.241 | 8.460 | 3 | 0.037 |
symptom | null | 3 | 1,850.536 | 1,861.287 | -922.268 | 1,844.536 | |||
symptom | random | 6 | 1,850.595 | 1,872.096 | -919.297 | 1,838.595 | 5.941 | 3 | 0.114 |
slof_work | null | 3 | 1,526.193 | 1,536.943 | -760.096 | 1,520.193 | |||
slof_work | random | 6 | 1,531.167 | 1,552.668 | -759.583 | 1,519.167 | 1.026 | 3 | 0.795 |
slof_relationship | null | 3 | 1,643.400 | 1,654.150 | -818.700 | 1,637.400 | |||
slof_relationship | random | 6 | 1,647.866 | 1,669.367 | -817.933 | 1,635.866 | 1.534 | 3 | 0.675 |
satisfaction | null | 3 | 1,732.655 | 1,743.405 | -863.327 | 1,726.655 | |||
satisfaction | random | 6 | 1,730.802 | 1,752.303 | -859.401 | 1,718.802 | 7.853 | 3 | 0.049 |
mhc_emotional | null | 3 | 1,384.574 | 1,395.324 | -689.287 | 1,378.574 | |||
mhc_emotional | random | 6 | 1,388.196 | 1,409.697 | -688.098 | 1,376.196 | 2.377 | 3 | 0.498 |
mhc_social | null | 3 | 1,640.209 | 1,650.959 | -817.104 | 1,634.209 | |||
mhc_social | random | 6 | 1,642.649 | 1,664.150 | -815.325 | 1,630.649 | 3.559 | 3 | 0.313 |
mhc_psychological | null | 3 | 1,714.051 | 1,724.802 | -854.026 | 1,708.051 | |||
mhc_psychological | random | 6 | 1,716.828 | 1,738.329 | -852.414 | 1,704.828 | 3.223 | 3 | 0.359 |
resilisnce | null | 3 | 1,534.137 | 1,544.887 | -764.068 | 1,528.137 | |||
resilisnce | random | 6 | 1,528.785 | 1,550.285 | -758.392 | 1,516.785 | 11.352 | 3 | 0.010 |
social_provision | null | 3 | 1,272.003 | 1,282.754 | -633.002 | 1,266.003 | |||
social_provision | random | 6 | 1,271.077 | 1,292.578 | -629.539 | 1,259.077 | 6.926 | 3 | 0.074 |
els_value_living | null | 3 | 1,320.060 | 1,330.811 | -657.030 | 1,314.060 | |||
els_value_living | random | 6 | 1,322.228 | 1,343.729 | -655.114 | 1,310.228 | 3.832 | 3 | 0.280 |
els_life_fulfill | null | 3 | 1,325.753 | 1,336.503 | -659.876 | 1,319.753 | |||
els_life_fulfill | random | 6 | 1,325.229 | 1,346.730 | -656.614 | 1,313.229 | 6.524 | 3 | 0.089 |
els | null | 3 | 1,634.047 | 1,644.798 | -814.024 | 1,628.047 | |||
els | random | 6 | 1,633.865 | 1,655.366 | -810.932 | 1,621.865 | 6.183 | 3 | 0.103 |
social_connect | null | 3 | 1,873.877 | 1,884.627 | -933.938 | 1,867.877 | |||
social_connect | random | 6 | 1,870.100 | 1,891.601 | -929.050 | 1,858.100 | 9.776 | 3 | 0.021 |
shs_agency | null | 3 | 1,550.608 | 1,561.359 | -772.304 | 1,544.608 | |||
shs_agency | random | 6 | 1,551.241 | 1,572.742 | -769.621 | 1,539.241 | 5.367 | 3 | 0.147 |
shs_pathway | null | 3 | 1,446.765 | 1,457.515 | -720.382 | 1,440.765 | |||
shs_pathway | random | 6 | 1,448.587 | 1,470.088 | -718.294 | 1,436.587 | 4.177 | 3 | 0.243 |
shs | null | 3 | 1,842.408 | 1,853.158 | -918.204 | 1,836.408 | |||
shs | random | 6 | 1,843.403 | 1,864.904 | -915.701 | 1,831.403 | 5.005 | 3 | 0.171 |
esteem | null | 3 | 973.159 | 983.910 | -483.580 | 967.159 | |||
esteem | random | 6 | 978.791 | 1,000.292 | -483.395 | 966.791 | 0.369 | 3 | 0.947 |
mlq_search | null | 3 | 1,391.518 | 1,402.269 | -692.759 | 1,385.518 | |||
mlq_search | random | 6 | 1,393.914 | 1,415.415 | -690.957 | 1,381.914 | 3.604 | 3 | 0.308 |
mlq_presence | null | 3 | 1,492.546 | 1,503.297 | -743.273 | 1,486.546 | |||
mlq_presence | random | 6 | 1,494.183 | 1,515.684 | -741.091 | 1,482.183 | 4.364 | 3 | 0.225 |
mlq | null | 3 | 1,756.212 | 1,766.963 | -875.106 | 1,750.212 | |||
mlq | random | 6 | 1,757.957 | 1,779.458 | -872.979 | 1,745.957 | 4.255 | 3 | 0.235 |
empower | null | 3 | 1,478.857 | 1,489.608 | -736.429 | 1,472.857 | |||
empower | random | 6 | 1,480.131 | 1,501.632 | -734.066 | 1,468.131 | 4.726 | 3 | 0.193 |
ismi_resistance | null | 3 | 1,215.358 | 1,226.109 | -604.679 | 1,209.358 | |||
ismi_resistance | random | 6 | 1,217.913 | 1,239.414 | -602.957 | 1,205.913 | 3.445 | 3 | 0.328 |
ismi_discrimation | null | 3 | 1,340.582 | 1,351.332 | -667.291 | 1,334.582 | |||
ismi_discrimation | random | 6 | 1,342.232 | 1,363.733 | -665.116 | 1,330.232 | 4.350 | 3 | 0.226 |
sss_affective | null | 3 | 1,382.456 | 1,393.206 | -688.228 | 1,376.456 | |||
sss_affective | random | 6 | 1,378.822 | 1,400.323 | -683.411 | 1,366.822 | 9.633 | 3 | 0.022 |
sss_behavior | null | 3 | 1,387.131 | 1,397.881 | -690.565 | 1,381.131 | |||
sss_behavior | random | 6 | 1,389.510 | 1,411.011 | -688.755 | 1,377.510 | 3.621 | 3 | 0.305 |
sss_cognitive | null | 3 | 1,389.654 | 1,400.404 | -691.827 | 1,383.654 | |||
sss_cognitive | random | 6 | 1,391.187 | 1,412.688 | -689.594 | 1,379.187 | 4.467 | 3 | 0.215 |
sss | null | 3 | 1,917.222 | 1,927.972 | -955.611 | 1,911.222 | |||
sss | random | 6 | 1,916.235 | 1,937.736 | -952.117 | 1,904.235 | 6.987 | 3 | 0.072 |
Post hoc analysis
Table
outcome | time | control | treatment | between | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | estimate | within es | n | estimate | within es | p | es | ||
recovery_stage_a | 1st | 90 | 3.18 ± 1.19 | 89 | 3.10 ± 1.19 | 0.668 | 0.082 | ||
recovery_stage_a | 2nd | 47 | 3.28 ± 1.16 | -0.111 | 40 | 3.54 ± 1.15 | -0.465 | 0.303 | -0.272 |
recovery_stage_b | 1st | 90 | 18.01 ± 2.90 | 89 | 17.76 ± 2.90 | 0.569 | 0.129 | ||
recovery_stage_b | 2nd | 47 | 17.73 ± 2.68 | 0.146 | 40 | 18.39 ± 2.64 | -0.326 | 0.251 | -0.343 |
ras_confidence | 1st | 90 | 29.63 ± 5.36 | 89 | 30.15 ± 5.36 | 0.523 | -0.185 | ||
ras_confidence | 2nd | 47 | 30.34 ± 4.63 | -0.255 | 40 | 32.11 ± 4.51 | -0.707 | 0.073 | -0.637 |
ras_willingness | 1st | 90 | 11.76 ± 2.01 | 89 | 11.82 ± 2.01 | 0.830 | -0.055 | ||
ras_willingness | 2nd | 47 | 11.63 ± 1.79 | 0.104 | 40 | 12.21 ± 1.76 | -0.332 | 0.130 | -0.491 |
ras_goal | 1st | 90 | 17.33 ± 3.20 | 89 | 17.63 ± 3.20 | 0.537 | -0.157 | ||
ras_goal | 2nd | 47 | 17.46 ± 2.86 | -0.064 | 40 | 18.42 ± 2.81 | -0.418 | 0.115 | -0.510 |
ras_reliance | 1st | 90 | 13.11 ± 2.90 | 89 | 13.55 ± 2.90 | 0.313 | -0.262 | ||
ras_reliance | 2nd | 47 | 13.39 ± 2.58 | -0.168 | 40 | 14.33 ± 2.53 | -0.462 | 0.091 | -0.556 |
ras_domination | 1st | 90 | 10.01 ± 2.41 | 89 | 9.60 ± 2.41 | 0.249 | 0.246 | ||
ras_domination | 2nd | 47 | 9.92 ± 2.26 | 0.054 | 40 | 10.61 ± 2.24 | -0.601 | 0.155 | -0.409 |
symptom | 1st | 90 | 29.98 ± 9.14 | 89 | 29.74 ± 9.14 | 0.863 | 0.058 | ||
symptom | 2nd | 47 | 28.77 ± 7.62 | 0.297 | 40 | 28.01 ± 7.36 | 0.424 | 0.640 | 0.185 |
slof_work | 1st | 90 | 22.63 ± 4.74 | 89 | 22.07 ± 4.74 | 0.425 | 0.219 | ||
slof_work | 2nd | 47 | 22.36 ± 4.15 | 0.107 | 40 | 22.40 ± 4.05 | -0.130 | 0.959 | -0.018 |
slof_relationship | 1st | 90 | 25.13 ± 5.84 | 89 | 25.66 ± 5.84 | 0.545 | -0.160 | ||
slof_relationship | 2nd | 47 | 24.71 ± 5.17 | 0.127 | 40 | 26.06 ± 5.06 | -0.119 | 0.222 | -0.406 |
satisfaction | 1st | 90 | 19.80 ± 7.11 | 89 | 21.16 ± 7.11 | 0.203 | -0.391 | ||
satisfaction | 2nd | 47 | 20.39 ± 6.05 | -0.171 | 40 | 22.79 ± 5.87 | -0.471 | 0.062 | -0.691 |
mhc_emotional | 1st | 90 | 10.66 ± 3.77 | 89 | 11.01 ± 3.77 | 0.528 | -0.200 | ||
mhc_emotional | 2nd | 47 | 11.14 ± 3.18 | -0.270 | 40 | 11.22 ± 3.08 | -0.118 | 0.900 | -0.048 |
mhc_social | 1st | 90 | 15.12 ± 5.86 | 89 | 15.10 ± 5.86 | 0.981 | 0.007 | ||
mhc_social | 2nd | 47 | 16.07 ± 5.12 | -0.299 | 40 | 15.88 ± 4.99 | -0.246 | 0.863 | 0.059 |
mhc_psychological | 1st | 90 | 21.77 ± 6.76 | 89 | 21.81 ± 6.76 | 0.967 | -0.012 | ||
mhc_psychological | 2nd | 47 | 22.79 ± 5.88 | -0.283 | 40 | 22.65 ± 5.74 | -0.235 | 0.916 | 0.036 |
resilisnce | 1st | 90 | 16.01 ± 4.64 | 89 | 16.90 ± 4.64 | 0.202 | -0.329 | ||
resilisnce | 2nd | 47 | 16.42 ± 4.13 | -0.152 | 40 | 18.49 ± 4.05 | -0.592 | 0.019 | -0.769 |
social_provision | 1st | 90 | 13.26 ± 2.85 | 89 | 13.89 ± 2.85 | 0.140 | -0.380 | ||
social_provision | 2nd | 47 | 12.85 ± 2.55 | 0.244 | 40 | 14.27 ± 2.49 | -0.230 | 0.009 | -0.854 |
els_value_living | 1st | 90 | 16.79 ± 3.21 | 89 | 17.22 ± 3.21 | 0.365 | -0.253 | ||
els_value_living | 2nd | 47 | 17.01 ± 2.80 | -0.126 | 40 | 17.77 ± 2.73 | -0.318 | 0.199 | -0.444 |
els_life_fulfill | 1st | 90 | 12.33 ± 3.31 | 89 | 13.15 ± 3.31 | 0.102 | -0.500 | ||
els_life_fulfill | 2nd | 47 | 12.63 ± 2.82 | -0.180 | 40 | 13.70 ± 2.74 | -0.339 | 0.074 | -0.659 |
els | 1st | 90 | 29.12 ± 6.02 | 89 | 30.37 ± 6.02 | 0.167 | -0.449 | ||
els | 2nd | 47 | 29.66 ± 5.06 | -0.194 | 40 | 31.39 ± 4.89 | -0.367 | 0.107 | -0.621 |
social_connect | 1st | 90 | 26.86 ± 9.35 | 89 | 26.01 ± 9.35 | 0.546 | 0.193 | ||
social_connect | 2nd | 47 | 27.03 ± 7.88 | -0.040 | 40 | 23.25 ± 7.63 | 0.632 | 0.024 | 0.865 |
shs_agency | 1st | 90 | 13.92 ± 5.07 | 89 | 14.79 ± 5.07 | 0.255 | -0.348 | ||
shs_agency | 2nd | 47 | 14.35 ± 4.32 | -0.171 | 40 | 15.70 ± 4.19 | -0.367 | 0.141 | -0.544 |
shs_pathway | 1st | 90 | 15.52 ± 4.10 | 89 | 16.48 ± 4.10 | 0.118 | -0.446 | ||
shs_pathway | 2nd | 47 | 16.01 ± 3.55 | -0.227 | 40 | 16.81 ± 3.46 | -0.153 | 0.288 | -0.372 |
shs | 1st | 90 | 29.44 ± 8.76 | 89 | 31.27 ± 8.76 | 0.165 | -0.423 | ||
shs | 2nd | 47 | 30.35 ± 7.47 | -0.210 | 40 | 32.49 ± 7.26 | -0.282 | 0.179 | -0.494 |
esteem | 1st | 90 | 12.60 ± 1.55 | 89 | 12.61 ± 1.55 | 0.977 | -0.006 | ||
esteem | 2nd | 47 | 12.55 ± 1.49 | 0.041 | 40 | 12.73 ± 1.48 | -0.103 | 0.579 | -0.149 |
mlq_search | 1st | 90 | 14.58 ± 3.47 | 89 | 15.21 ± 3.47 | 0.222 | -0.273 | ||
mlq_search | 2nd | 47 | 15.35 ± 3.22 | -0.333 | 40 | 15.10 ± 3.18 | 0.048 | 0.715 | 0.108 |
mlq_presence | 1st | 90 | 13.31 ± 4.33 | 89 | 13.48 ± 4.33 | 0.791 | -0.067 | ||
mlq_presence | 2nd | 47 | 14.16 ± 3.87 | -0.334 | 40 | 14.15 ± 3.80 | -0.260 | 0.983 | 0.007 |
mlq | 1st | 90 | 27.89 ± 7.02 | 89 | 28.70 ± 7.02 | 0.442 | -0.186 | ||
mlq | 2nd | 47 | 29.52 ± 6.37 | -0.374 | 40 | 29.27 ± 6.26 | -0.133 | 0.858 | 0.056 |
empower | 1st | 90 | 18.91 ± 4.34 | 89 | 19.48 ± 4.34 | 0.379 | -0.249 | ||
empower | 2nd | 47 | 19.89 ± 3.77 | -0.425 | 40 | 19.48 ± 3.67 | 0.000 | 0.614 | 0.176 |
ismi_resistance | 1st | 90 | 14.44 ± 2.51 | 89 | 14.40 ± 2.51 | 0.915 | 0.024 | ||
ismi_resistance | 2nd | 47 | 14.58 ± 2.31 | -0.080 | 40 | 15.02 ± 2.28 | -0.377 | 0.368 | -0.272 |
ismi_discrimation | 1st | 90 | 11.74 ± 3.11 | 89 | 11.48 ± 3.11 | 0.575 | 0.118 | ||
ismi_discrimation | 2nd | 47 | 11.46 ± 2.93 | 0.130 | 40 | 10.68 ± 2.90 | 0.365 | 0.214 | 0.354 |
sss_affective | 1st | 90 | 10.08 ± 3.63 | 89 | 10.28 ± 3.63 | 0.709 | -0.111 | ||
sss_affective | 2nd | 47 | 10.01 ± 3.12 | 0.036 | 40 | 9.05 ± 3.03 | 0.670 | 0.147 | 0.524 |
sss_behavior | 1st | 90 | 9.89 ± 3.70 | 89 | 9.80 ± 3.70 | 0.869 | 0.049 | ||
sss_behavior | 2nd | 47 | 9.58 ± 3.18 | 0.163 | 40 | 9.12 ± 3.09 | 0.362 | 0.491 | 0.248 |
sss_cognitive | 1st | 90 | 8.27 ± 3.64 | 89 | 8.51 ± 3.64 | 0.661 | -0.121 | ||
sss_cognitive | 2nd | 47 | 8.19 ± 3.19 | 0.039 | 40 | 7.62 ± 3.11 | 0.449 | 0.397 | 0.290 |
sss | 1st | 90 | 28.23 ± 10.24 | 89 | 28.58 ± 10.24 | 0.819 | -0.074 | ||
sss | 2nd | 47 | 27.74 ± 8.60 | 0.104 | 40 | 25.93 ± 8.32 | 0.562 | 0.319 | 0.384 |
Between group
recovery_stage_a
1st
t(240.60) = -0.43, p = 0.668, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-0.43 to 0.27)
2st
t(256.86) = 1.03, p = 0.303, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.23 to 0.74)
recovery_stage_b
1st
t(221.23) = -0.57, p = 0.569, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-1.10 to 0.61)
2st
t(257.62) = 1.15, p = 0.251, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.47 to 1.79)
ras_confidence
1st
t(202.70) = 0.64, p = 0.523, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.07 to 2.09)
2st
t(261.96) = 1.80, p = 0.073, Cohen d = -0.64, 95% CI (-0.17 to 3.70)
ras_willingness
1st
t(211.20) = 0.22, p = 0.830, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.53 to 0.66)
2st
t(260.13) = 1.52, p = 0.130, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.17 to 1.33)
ras_goal
1st
t(211.34) = 0.62, p = 0.537, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.65 to 1.24)
2st
t(260.08) = 1.58, p = 0.115, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-0.24 to 2.16)
ras_reliance
1st
t(209.64) = 1.01, p = 0.313, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.42 to 1.30)
2st
t(260.56) = 1.70, p = 0.091, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-0.15 to 2.01)
ras_domination
1st
t(226.97) = -1.15, p = 0.249, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-1.12 to 0.29)
2st
t(256.77) = 1.43, p = 0.155, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.26 to 1.64)
symptom
1st
t(195.52) = -0.17, p = 0.863, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-2.93 to 2.46)
2st
t(260.11) = -0.47, p = 0.640, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-3.92 to 2.41)
slof_work
1st
t(205.67) = -0.80, p = 0.425, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-1.96 to 0.83)
2st
t(261.53) = 0.05, p = 0.959, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-1.69 to 1.78)
slof_relationship
1st
t(208.40) = 0.61, p = 0.545, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.19 to 2.25)
2st
t(260.89) = 1.22, p = 0.222, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.82 to 3.51)
satisfaction
1st
t(199.55) = 1.28, p = 0.203, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.74 to 3.45)
2st
t(261.84) = 1.87, p = 0.062, Cohen d = -0.69, 95% CI (-0.13 to 4.92)
mhc_emotional
1st
t(198.05) = 0.63, p = 0.528, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.76 to 1.47)
2st
t(261.45) = 0.13, p = 0.900, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.24 to 1.41)
mhc_social
1st
t(205.19) = -0.02, p = 0.981, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-1.75 to 1.71)
2st
t(261.62) = -0.17, p = 0.863, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-2.33 to 1.95)
mhc_psychological
1st
t(204.39) = 0.04, p = 0.967, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.95 to 2.03)
2st
t(261.76) = -0.11, p = 0.916, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-2.59 to 2.33)
resilisnce
1st
t(210.24) = 1.28, p = 0.202, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.48 to 2.25)
2st
t(260.39) = 2.36, p = 0.019, Cohen d = -0.77, 95% CI (0.34 to 3.81)
social_provision
1st
t(210.40) = 1.48, p = 0.140, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.21 to 1.47)
2st
t(260.35) = 2.62, p = 0.009, Cohen d = -0.85, 95% CI (0.35 to 2.49)
els_value_living
1st
t(204.75) = 0.91, p = 0.365, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.51 to 1.38)
2st
t(261.70) = 1.29, p = 0.199, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.41 to 1.94)
els_life_fulfill
1st
t(199.85) = 1.64, p = 0.102, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.16 to 1.79)
2st
t(261.88) = 1.79, p = 0.074, Cohen d = -0.66, 95% CI (-0.11 to 2.25)
els
1st
t(197.09) = 1.39, p = 0.167, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (-0.53 to 3.02)
2st
t(261.06) = 1.62, p = 0.107, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (-0.37 to 3.83)
social_connect
1st
t(197.65) = -0.60, p = 0.546, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-3.60 to 1.91)
2st
t(261.30) = -2.27, p = 0.024, Cohen d = 0.86, 95% CI (-7.07 to -0.51)
shs_agency
1st
t(199.79) = 1.14, p = 0.255, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.63 to 2.36)
2st
t(261.87) = 1.48, p = 0.141, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-0.45 to 3.15)
shs_pathway
1st
t(203.65) = 1.57, p = 0.118, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (-0.25 to 2.17)
2st
t(261.86) = 1.07, p = 0.288, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.68 to 2.29)
shs
1st
t(200.06) = 1.39, p = 0.165, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.76 to 4.41)
2st
t(261.91) = 1.35, p = 0.179, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.98 to 5.25)
esteem
1st
t(237.54) = 0.03, p = 0.977, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.45 to 0.46)
2st
t(256.60) = 0.56, p = 0.579, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.45 to 0.81)
mlq_search
1st
t(222.56) = 1.22, p = 0.222, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.39 to 1.66)
2st
t(257.38) = -0.37, p = 0.715, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-1.61 to 1.10)
mlq_presence
1st
t(211.34) = 0.27, p = 0.791, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.10 to 1.45)
2st
t(260.09) = -0.02, p = 0.983, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-1.64 to 1.61)
mlq
1st
t(215.27) = 0.77, p = 0.442, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.26 to 2.88)
2st
t(259.00) = -0.18, p = 0.858, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-2.91 to 2.43)
empower
1st
t(203.97) = 0.88, p = 0.379, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.71 to 1.85)
2st
t(261.82) = -0.50, p = 0.614, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-1.98 to 1.17)
ismi_resistance
1st
t(219.80) = -0.11, p = 0.915, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-0.78 to 0.70)
2st
t(257.91) = 0.90, p = 0.368, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.53 to 1.42)
ismi_discrimation
1st
t(228.25) = -0.56, p = 0.575, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-1.18 to 0.66)
2st
t(256.66) = -1.25, p = 0.214, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-2.02 to 0.45)
sss_affective
1st
t(201.34) = 0.37, p = 0.709, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-0.87 to 1.27)
2st
t(262.00) = -1.45, p = 0.147, Cohen d = 0.52, 95% CI (-2.26 to 0.34)
sss_behavior
1st
t(201.56) = -0.16, p = 0.869, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-1.18 to 1.00)
2st
t(262.00) = -0.69, p = 0.491, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-1.79 to 0.86)
sss_cognitive
1st
t(205.61) = 0.44, p = 0.661, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.84 to 1.31)
2st
t(261.54) = -0.85, p = 0.397, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-1.91 to 0.76)
sss
1st
t(196.93) = 0.23, p = 0.819, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-2.67 to 3.37)
2st
t(260.98) = -1.00, p = 0.319, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-5.39 to 1.77)
Within treatment group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(127.33) = 2.27, p = 0.049, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (0.06 to 0.82)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(111.94) = 1.55, p = 0.249, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.18 to 1.43)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(99.84) = 3.28, p = 0.003, Cohen d = -0.71, 95% CI (0.77 to 3.15)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(105.18) = 1.56, p = 0.245, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.11 to 0.89)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(105.28) = 1.96, p = 0.105, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.01 to 1.59)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(104.18) = 2.16, p = 0.066, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (0.06 to 1.49)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(116.11) = 2.88, p = 0.009, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (0.32 to 1.71)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(95.53) = -1.95, p = 0.109, Cohen d = 0.42, 95% CI (-3.49 to 0.03)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(101.67) = 0.60, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.76 to 1.43)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(103.39) = 0.55, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.01 to 1.80)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(97.93) = 2.17, p = 0.064, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (0.14 to 3.13)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(97.02) = 0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.56 to 0.98)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(101.38) = 1.15, p = 0.510, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.57 to 2.13)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(100.88) = 1.09, p = 0.555, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.69 to 2.38)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(104.56) = 2.77, p = 0.013, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (0.45 to 2.74)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(104.67) = 1.08, p = 0.569, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.32 to 1.09)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(101.10) = 1.48, p = 0.285, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.19 to 1.28)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(98.11) = 1.56, p = 0.242, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.15 to 1.25)
els
1st vs 2st
t(96.45) = 1.69, p = 0.189, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.18 to 2.22)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(96.79) = -2.91, p = 0.009, Cohen d = 0.63, 95% CI (-4.65 to -0.88)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(98.07) = 1.69, p = 0.187, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.16 to 1.98)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(100.42) = 0.71, p = 0.957, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.59 to 1.25)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(98.23) = 1.30, p = 0.392, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.64 to 3.07)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(124.59) = 0.50, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.36 to 0.61)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(112.88) = -0.23, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-1.08 to 0.86)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(105.27) = 1.22, p = 0.452, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.42 to 1.74)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(107.86) = 0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.25 to 2.41)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(100.62) = 0.00, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-0.98 to 0.98)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(110.94) = 1.79, p = 0.153, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.07 to 1.30)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(117.06) = -1.75, p = 0.164, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-1.72 to 0.10)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(99.00) = -3.10, p = 0.005, Cohen d = 0.67, 95% CI (-2.02 to -0.44)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(99.14) = -1.68, p = 0.194, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-1.49 to 0.12)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(101.63) = -2.09, p = 0.078, Cohen d = 0.45, 95% CI (-1.73 to -0.05)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(96.36) = -2.59, p = 0.022, Cohen d = 0.56, 95% CI (-4.69 to -0.62)
Within control group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(120.72) = 0.58, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-0.25 to 0.46)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(107.90) = -0.75, p = 0.915, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-1.03 to 0.46)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(97.71) = 1.27, p = 0.412, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.39 to 1.81)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(102.22) = -0.53, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-0.59 to 0.34)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(102.30) = 0.33, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.62 to 0.86)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(101.38) = 0.85, p = 0.796, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.38 to 0.94)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(111.38) = -0.28, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-0.74 to 0.56)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(94.05) = -1.47, p = 0.288, Cohen d = 0.30, 95% CI (-2.84 to 0.42)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(99.27) = -0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-1.30 to 0.74)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(100.71) = -0.64, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-1.73 to 0.88)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(96.09) = 0.85, p = 0.792, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.79 to 1.98)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(95.32) = 1.34, p = 0.366, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.23 to 1.19)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(99.01) = 1.50, p = 0.275, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.31 to 2.20)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(98.59) = 1.42, p = 0.318, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.41 to 2.45)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(101.70) = 0.76, p = 0.893, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.65 to 1.47)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(101.79) = -1.23, p = 0.442, Cohen d = 0.24, 95% CI (-1.06 to 0.25)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(98.78) = 0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.46 to 0.90)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(96.24) = 0.90, p = 0.744, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.35 to 0.94)
els
1st vs 2st
t(94.84) = 0.97, p = 0.674, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.57 to 1.65)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(95.12) = 0.20, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-1.57 to 1.93)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(96.21) = 0.85, p = 0.793, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.56 to 1.41)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(98.21) = 1.13, p = 0.519, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.37 to 1.34)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(96.35) = 1.05, p = 0.593, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.81 to 2.63)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(118.44) = -0.21, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.50 to 0.40)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(108.69) = 1.70, p = 0.183, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.13 to 1.68)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(102.30) = 1.69, p = 0.190, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.15 to 1.86)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(104.47) = 1.90, p = 0.121, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.07 to 3.33)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(98.37) = 2.13, p = 0.072, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (0.07 to 1.89)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(107.06) = 0.41, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.50 to 0.77)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(112.18) = -0.67, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-1.13 to 0.56)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(97.01) = -0.18, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.80 to 0.66)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(97.12) = -0.81, p = 0.836, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.05 to 0.44)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(99.23) = -0.19, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.86 to 0.71)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(94.76) = -0.51, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-2.38 to 1.40)